*1 P.2d 612 suing ROTHFELS, himself for John Plaintiff, situated, similarly others
v. individually SOUTHWORTH, Loraine B. Agent Registration Tooele and as County, Commissioners Board of and the County, Defendants. Tooele No. 9332. Utah. Court of 10, 1960. Oct. Gen., de- Atty. Budge,
Walter L. fendants.
CROCKETT, Chief Justice. living Rothfels, *2 employee a civilian John reservation, on a to military petitioned compel registration agent the defendant voting register purpose to him for the in the 1960 an alterna- election. issued We tive it writ her to do so requiring
sought permanent. to be made plaintiff,
The Ger- immigrant from many, employment took em- as a civilian ployee Army in of the United States January, 1953, upon and has since resided military Tooele Dugway, reservation at County, He Utah. obtained his citizen- 1960, February, ship August 1956. On vote, he tried register to defendant but him, her register refused to giving “ * * * that, reason he has stated me that he resides on a military any and did not establish a residence in precinct prior in the State Utah Except time.” to this for that he fact
qualifications all other to vote.1 question presented:
The a civil- Can military living ian on a reservation be considered resident of state for purpose voting ? Miller, City, Salt Lake The right important
Hansen & to vote is an citizenship, attribute plaintiff. it derives from Const, requires: IV, county precinct months, days prior § art. 2 4 Citi 1. Utah 60 days; age United States for 90 zen of the to election. years; year, residence 21
171 upon preme U.S. only 352 granted be exercised Certiorari requirements up by legislat and while meeting set S.Ct. L.Ed.2d appropriate was ure.2 the section Accordingly, review was pending repealed. applicable parties accord examine the statutes problem the con this had Indians at hand and view permitting effect of interpretation, troversy regard appeal to their vote and dismissed was history stipulation plaintiff, proper it is look to their of counsel Allen, background policy and also to governmental Attorney But the General. meanings.3 to divine their Attorney that it does argues General here similarly apply direct at- first section which we argu- reservations. He bases 20-2-14(11) U.C.A. tention what ment on legis- which the 20-2-14(2) was included 1953 of our statutes which repeal, did lature only but amended in our laws statehood: election at the emphasized word, adding “solely.” It “Any person Indian living reads: now not be reservation shall person “A must not held to within deemed resident Utah *3 or gained solely by lost residence a chapter, this unless such meaning of presence reason of his or absence person acquired had a residence employed in while the service the up prior to taking some Utah county * * * United States or of state this upon or such Indian his residence upon any while Indian or military reservation.” military reservation.” 38, by chapter legislature, In 1957 our Attorney emphasis places General on repealed the above section. S.L.U.1957 legislature the fact that the the retained clearly an inten- this indicated think We preclude above section and so it to reads disability voting to the tion remove from plaintiff the establishing from a residence on the of residence solely on based fact purposes voting for a because he lives on re- military reservations. The Indian military reservation. these arose out that section peal of hand, the Allen v. On other the plaintiff the case of argues facts: In 1956 amendment, right an Merrell,4 Indian’s that considered in con- involving a case constitutionality repeal with vote, upheld nection the the of Sec. 20-2-14(11), we quoted, clearly Su- The United hereinabove States above statute. reflects See Bateman v. Board Examiners, 3. 7 Merrell, 2d 322 P.2d 2d 305 P.2d Utah 381. Utah v. 2.Allen 2d 4. 6 Utah P.2d 490. certainly spe- not disquali- there had been a where remove intent legislative ex- fact cific prohibition which thereafter solely on the based fication to vote reservation; repealed. military pressly a that one resides on de- should be right to vote and that his may though government Even the federal else, anyone as for same termined the a own and for purposes certain exercise qualification affecting such fact without relatively a high degree control over way other. or the state, military reservation within military purposes control is its and relies for the cites The defendant operations com- jurisdictions only legitimate cases from numerous laws, mand over may various or restraint it exercise under their hold that which military con- upon employees civilian that which person resides where necessary United States sistent for over which control, right purposes. no it has exer- has exclusive fact Government au Notwithstanding authority purpose cises such does exists.5 vote why cited, jurisdiction no reason not area see remove the from the we thorities prerogative of of the state. Both the federal not be within prerogatives their grant governments vote legislature respect reservations To shunt duties with thereto. persons residing ex sovereignty federal aside in favor government even where so legislature gov- if the federal jurisdiction, exclusive clusive entirely its upon unnecessary desired, pretext within because it ernment contrary the conditions funda- prescribe function would run province theory with origin exist our franchise mental voting underlying which impressed with are not sovereign state.6 We states government our is in itself, a reservation that such created the fiction the state. a gov- island and within caution that it should be exercised effect validity some may have some idea That powers ernment whose limited to were preventing purpose of purposes, expressly granted.7 those one of them. voting from citizens' *4 can We see connection nothing with any of the authorities regard doWe military purposes that give rise living proposition that citizens for cited army any arbitrary officials such needing could as military reservations vote ours, deprive such as citizens power statutes as under with- holding so seq. VII, IX, et U. S. Const. Amend. 34 A.L.R. 2d 7.See No. 5. See Merrell, 2, supra. X footnote and XI. Allen v. See 6. plaintiff following The sets un- any fundamental forth of the in the area of disputed that fed- sug- is no facts indicate citizenship, and there which rights of any government eral has and maintains some- au- desire such here that gestion considerably ju- quite inconceiv- less than exclusive any thing it is thority. event In necessity risdiction reservation: for on this be that there would able pre- right is reserved to state to serve extend so far as authority such process, criminal; privilege both civil and from having citizens vent anomalous schools located in the under the particularly area are voting. seems It control and administration the Tooele agency government of the state for an District; County such as tax contending in a situation School income be so persons making no occasion is levied and collected all there is for this when there; gov- of the federal taxes are also living on behalf other state claim tobacco, upon gasoline collected and all ernment. privately required owned are vehicles pre- to the issue here fundamental More registered the State Utah and have not regard that we do is the fact sented plates. Utah license ques- necessarily involving case could establish facts plaintiff foregoing make the tion whether instant a reser- analogous resided on case Arapajolu residence if he to vote case v. government federal decided in vation over which the McMenamin 19S2 the Cali- matter Appeal, District jurisdiction. As exclusive fornia we that some presented is contended reasoned and correct in regard is to us it as well re- parts Dugway Proving Grounds that held there notwithstanding sult. It jurisdiction jurisdiction under the exclusive been exclusive may have parts are States, that other United reser- federal that showing vations, is no foregoing, not. There affirmative such facts former, and plaintiff’s government, practical residence is in the as a it partial it not. Inasmuch as matter, he maintains that had retroceded state, and that this allowed citizen, all that he is having shown military reservations on the to ac- living qualifications, that establishes purposes residence with- voting quire prima register facie his to vote Upon application, state. the Cali- must allowed to do unless and he so clearly some Court refused fornia to review established there privilege. decision. basis him denying Cal.App.2d 824, 1185. 249 P.2d 34 A.L.R.2d
174 import work, and similar live and generally case of attend school church
Another approves pursue the most and and all result follows the normal activities of Lon- of life. that Adams v. Such installations have case is existed for California of Appeals many years so by anything deree Court of from is known, they decisions Virginia.9 permanent part recent of West These of our represent and what seem the modern social economic life therefore of view political we better considered should think is the be our life also. The particularly question so when requirement matter. This whether residence in developments light statute,10 in the is met is governed viewed reservations, and years charged duty recent those military with the of administer- changes the noted it. The fact more so ing when that one living our are considered. statutes there because of em- convenience his ployment, and will move else somewhere argument con- related
Closely terminates, many unlike posi- exclusive cerning or industrial mining of our communities by the defendant that the control tion taken state. it is in only If fact his home and employees fed- exercised over these residence, he intends it as fact makes their residence of government eral that his his home making motivation transitory they nature that cannot such a employ- there is that he government has purposes. The substan- qualify for voting purpose ment will his' if he defeat operations changes tial the nature of requirements otherwise meets the reservations since advent statute. important bearing have an World II War they In times argument. former
on this The considerations whether concerning exclusively by populated practically were employees civilian should vote are empha- armed in the forces. different than when greatly sub-section 11 upon personnel; it has shifted to sis was adopted. originally purpose ap- Its materiel. pears prevent to have been to the federal' personnel, manipulating from these reservations have
Some of
unduly
them in order
influencing
mechanized and
to con-
highly
industrial-
or
become
local
large
results of
elections.
percentage
trol the
In that
areas
ized
is significant
it’
to note
connection
consisting
thereon
of civilian
population
38)
For
our statutes
amending
(chap.
convenience of all
employees.
they
legislature
amended sub-section (3)
their
families
reside
concerned
emphasized
upon
military reservation. There
adding
20-2-14
words:
20-2-14,
S.E.24 127.
10. Sec.
U.C.A.1953.
139 W.Va.
soldier,
quoted
airman,
officer,
seaman
saying:
nothing
“There
more
“No
airforce,
army,
revolting than
or
or
to have no better reason for
marine
a rule than
navy
shall
that it was so
down in
United States
laid
Henry IV;
time
it is
deemed a
this state
still more re-
resident of
consequence
volting if
being
grounds
stationed at
which it was
11
vanished.” We think
so
military, air,
laid down have
naval station
within
*6
application
this
particularly cogent
the
has
same.”
to
the
controversy.
instant
leg-
points up that the matter received
This
expressly con-
islative
that it
and
attention
point
important
A further
keep
to
in mind
against persons ac-
tinued the interdiction
is that our legislature, with its undoubted
forces,
par-
the
tively
the
serving in
armed
prerogative
prescribing the
of
conditions
sub-
personnel
would be most
which
ticular
upon
depends,
which
right
the
to vote
has
control, and
manipulation and
ject
such
to
always taken it for
that citizens
granted
originally
purpose
law was
which
the
for
having
upon military
sufficient residence
reason,
because of
and
enacted. For this
reservations within the state could vote
military oper-
of
change in
nature
the
the
prohibited by
unless
statute. This is shown
reservations,
justifica-
such
ations on
by
the fact that sub-section
which was
prohibition
the general
originally
for
tion
prohibition against
a general
persons re-
in
11 has largely
sub-section
contained
van-
adopt-
siding
reservations,
on
was
salutary
and the
ished
considerations in
statehood,
may
ed at
same
be
and the
said
employees
permitting civilian
favor of
re-
prohibits
ac-
3 which still so
sub-section
n
military reservations to have
siding on
and
military personnel
voting.
tive
from
privileges
citizenship
full
exercise
any
legislature’s repeal
In view of the
outweigh
considerations to the
far
sub-section
we
contrary. The
that the
think
fact
it abun
bases
pre-
dantly clear that it intended
persons residing
cog
to take
venting all
on military
changes
nizance
voting
circumstances
from
has so changed
reservations
and
potential evils
hereinabove discussed
to
respect
remove the
voting
barrier from
supports
is so minimal
residents
civilian
place
reservations
statutes
them
interpretation of our
that it
basis as other
the same
citizens
intent
to lift
legislative
barrier
regard
acquiring
from
voting.
residence
prevented them
We
which
actively
(Except
thought expressed vote.
those
serving in
with the
in accord
forces,
by
3.)
armed
covered
Holmes wherein he
sub-section
great
Justice
p.
Holmes, by Silas Bent
149.
Justice O.
W.
consequences suggested
quite
The
would seem
discordant
to tire ideals
dire
liberty,
government could affect elections
American
a result not
be de-
only
controlling
such em-
sired
which should eventuate
influencing
and one
clearly required
Ac-
ployees
no cause for alarm.
if
under the law.
give
should
cordingly,
consider.
If
are not as
legislature
That is for
statutes
desired,
regard
may
should come into
clear in
be
circumstance
threaten,
fur-
could
doubts should be resolved in favor
being, or should
priv-
remove
the end that citizens
legislative
ther
enactment
vote to
ilege
enjoy
rights
to vote.
full
given
privileges
now
them
it has
citizenship.
law is
interpretation
give
we
they now
harmony with
statutes
our
Closely
just
to the doctrine
related
by the
indicated
their intent as
exist and
well recognized
stated
rule
statu
being;
purpose
they came into
for which
tory
can be
construction that
if statutes
upon
ideals
with the
is also consonant
interpretations,
given different reasonable
nation was founded
which this
be
under one of which
would
constitu
rest.
must
well-being
continued
its
their
tional
under
constitu
actively partici
vote and
right to
tionality
doubtful,
will
the former
most
processes
among
pate
adopted.12
Our conclusion renders it
*7
our
which
precious
privileges
unnecessary
to consider
contention of
estab
government
democratic form of
plaintiff
in
the statutes are so
free
struggle of
history of the
The
lished.
terpreted
deny
right
as to
him the
vote
maintain
men
and
to obtain
dom-loving
they would be unconstitutional
discrim
not
known that it is
is so well
rights
such
inating
him
which
against
and the class to
re-af
we
But
thereon.
necessary
dwell
belongs.
he
importance,
desirability and the
firm the
per-
previously
writ
issued made
to vote-
permitting citizens
only of
manent. No costs awarded.
do so.
them to
encouraging
McDONOUGH, JJ.,
WADE
concur.
and
as to
interpret our statutes
so
To
citi
sought American
who has
deprive one
HENRIOD,
(dissenting).
Justice
embracing
very purpose of
zenship
I dissent for several reasons:
democracy
liberty principles
our
opinion completely
its ad
enjoying
ignores
him from
1. The main
prevent
thus
processes
participating
decisis,
the doctrine
stare
vantages and
backbone
Watson,
191,
12. Parkinson v.
4 Utah 2d
of our authority that: states respected long cases line of here. decision
directly in conflict a given “Where state has ceded a 1195, an Reports 2d Law American In 34 tract of land to the for a United States author- reportorial accurate unquestionably like, navy yard, arsenal or the and there here, involved cases like that ity, the law in jurisdiction is no reservation of succinctly is stated thus: right state other civil than the to serve lands, process and criminal on such where virtually all of cases “In upon do who reside lands such military res- residents right acquire as any elective franchise has
ervation to vote state elections inhabitants state.” issue, held been at the courts ex- exercised government the federal 62, says: Elections, And Paine on Sec. jurisdiction area clusive over the upon reside land ceded “Persons who right to therein had no that residents by a state to United as States vote elections.” yard, site of an without navy arsenal or text, Another eminent American Juris- beyond reservation of prudence, has in 18 Am.Jur. process right to serve civil and criminal say: this to thereon, in- are not entitled to vote in a “Residence habitants of state.” of the Federal will not Government completely give right pronouncements, con- at a elec- These vote conclusion, trary opinion’s county tion held in the res- to the main where the applicable Similarly, ervation is has been located. where cases there where upon process, as asylum right the land or other reservation of serve has institution is erected been ceded to well as where the federal has States, Act, permitted by Congressional the states United the inmates thereof reservations, are denied the to tax residents suffrage ground authorities their certain lose status cases. cases longer supporting the above citizens state and can no are almost numberless propositions political rights refuting the doctrine exercise civil or *8 opinion.1 its laws.” main under Polk, 72; 822; Clary, App., 1. McMahon v. Commonwealth v. 103 N.E.2d 8 Mass. 580; 77, 830; Opinion 296, Justices, Mass., Metc., 1 73 N.W. 47 L.R.A. 10 S.D. Willett, 334, Arledge 303, Mabry, 52 117 Tenn. 97 S.W. v. 197 P.2d v. N.M. State Reese, 306; 884; Smith, 299; v. 19 Ohio St. State ex rel. Wendt v. Ohio Sinks 178 opinion,
The main contrast a one-man majority well knows. It was support it, points opinion myriad refusing by the tribunal, cases in an not inferior might been some extent it one case that to Had Court of the state. Londeree,2 v. recently It is Adams said do so. written it would not significant, split That been since Reporter, decision. case found in the Pacific publishers dis my opinion, time the well-reasoned of that some work factually toas un- sent, and it since reporting was so different have discontinued authority, if at be at best a watered-down authoritative decisions as that all, support There majority here. heavily the decision here so leans state, almost lifelong gives resident of the which it endorsement. way employed by complete authority lack of cited base, simply a vacant rented quality naval and the of that such installation, smothering house on free to come muster, light can go, govern allegience contrary and with authority no avalanche of to the pay duty point ment or the save a up position and the weakness of its course, flouting authority con- distinction, rent established tenant. trary. is obvious. People, particularly when are major-
Only suggested case apprised or true established law ity Arapajolu McMenamin. It cannot v. facts, prone snap judgments, to make here, as support opinion authoritatively 624, 289; People 346 Pa. 31 A.2d v. Spackman, 692, Idaho 65 P. Powell v. 503, 7 Hillman, 400; 467, 246 N.Y. 159 378; N.E. 54 State ex rel. Wendt L.R.A. King, Ky. 699, v. 822; Commonwealth 252 68 Smith, Ohio App., 103 N.E.2d v. Engineering 45; v. Webb S.W.2d J. 230, G. White Shearston, v. 73 Colo. 214 Merrill p., 429, 729; 204 Ala. 224, 540; 66; 85 So. Sec. 29 Cor 18 Am.Jur. P. Morris, 46, Co. McCrary Concessions v. 25; 109 Wash. on Elec § Elections O.J.S. 655; Mack, 186 P. State ex 89; Jones v. tions, Ed., rel. Paine 4th Elec Sec. 359, 763, Am.St.Rep. 23 47 Winthrop, Nev. P. 62 62; Military tions, Law 811; Co., v. p. Oscar Ed., 1921, 898; Dig. Willis Daniels 200 Precedents, 2 and Op. 19, 496; 937-938; Mich. 166 N.W. Dig.Op.JAG, Anderson JAG, 1912, v. Chicago RR, 578, & N. 1912-1940, 1; W. 102 p. Neb. Fort Leavenworth RR 196; 168 Bank 995, N.W. 525, Phoebus v. Lowe, 5 114 U.S. S.Ct. Co. v. Bryum, 708, Foley 349; Surplus 110 264; Trading Va. 67 S.E. L.Ed. v. Co. 29 Shriver, 568; Morris, v. Va. 81 455, State v. Cook, 647, 50 281 S.Ct. U.S. 74 222, 1103; 68 Unzeuta, 76 N.J.L. A. 1091; Miller v. United States v. L.Ed. Hickory Board, School 284, 761; Groves 138, 162 Kan. 74 50 S.Ct. L.Ed. 281 U.S. 214; 528, People 178 P.2d State ex rel. Parker v. Co. State of Standard Oil Corcoran, 714, v. 155 Kan. California, 242, 381, 128 P.2d 999, 54 291 U.S. S.Ct. 142 775; A.L.R. v. L.Ed. Johnson Yellow Cab 78 2. W.Va. S.E.2d 127. Co., 64 S.Ct. L. 321 U.S. City 814; Philadelphia, Kiker v. Ed. *9 espouse right suffrage. county Such be seen that in a where the Indian like the of pastime popular. so, population being a is This to a would amount substantial accepted layman opinion may proportion citizenry, he may the main of the or even inhabitants, allowing deci- popular popularity as a But of one. outnumber the other as place sion law might never was control considered them to vote substantial In right. expend- necessarily county the authoritative being who, my opinion the this case group decision in iture citizens of its funds in a of authoritative, neither illustrated class, has been a extremely as limited interest an it, by universality authority against responsibility very of in its functions and little warrant, right, nor since gives support without providing financial thereof.” sovereignty a little more our state writer, And it is not inconceivable to this decision, goverment. the federal After military now, that as the residents of any civilian federal officials can insist that reservation, leave many of whom would import they may or number of civilians that employ- their termination of reservation, place a shall military on ment, petitioner here, through coun- the—as insist, right vote, but can do,— sel, already has admitted he would hand, Utah exercise that the state of might candidates well election of control the persons. no other over those born County offices, who were Tooele future It not inconceivable that roots in Tooele and have had their bred might deign some to control entire repeated that County their all lives. It simple by political life of our state popular thing to suffrage is a importing a sufficient number device of But neither So is motherhood. endorse. military reservation transient workers to illegitimacy, justify any should kind of power that would constitute the balance of including the abuse of the ballot. in a election. writer of close opinion in opinion, wrote the who also are so the authorities overwhelm- Since Merrell, P.2d Utah 2d Allen v. [6 harmony ingly decision out he “The recognizes this when said 494] here, precedents, including the and since possibility of influence and control over decisions of ** * military res- firmly having so established United States appears living military officials on a federal ervations important motivating exclusively controlled gov- factor have been questioned originally. eligible act to vote in elec- passage of the ernment yet tions, though potential exists to a some considerable concessions states, being again: plain And thus such as “It is made to allowed extent.” complete- tion, quoted simply process, ig- the main statement to serve problem overwhelming authority at- weight nores ly sight of the whole loses says If the it is a state statute. an island. This statement tempting construe surprise res- will come somewhat says living on law that one vote, government, particularly acquire the federal a status ervation cannot voter, emergencies qualify as a state time where the he cannot it means *10 residing clearly necessity and than one reservation is and no more status and has apart vote register and be an to must island from state author- in Nevada would have ity. Utah,3 eyes It is a a of the District statement that its or resident closes to, anywhere. Congressional as vote Columbia who cannot interdictions practical operations and the on mil- found opinion, the au- recognizing The main itary bases, reservations and installations “Notwith- against it, that states thorities generally. Any that the I. will tell us G. cited, no standing we see the authorities Commanding powerful. Officer is all Those pre- why within the it would not be reason subject on the base are to his control grant rogative legislature of the respect military person- to both and civilian on right to vote to power nel. This includes absolute gov-, the federal even where reservations base, control locomotion on the conduct This jurisdiction.” emment had exclusive individual, power of the and the to restrict way saying that simply another any resident of base area without desire, we arrive at result (cid:127)we want to right suffrage. of the benefit what- pay any attention going zve not are constitution, or the law ever to the It is indeed unfortunate that writer his- traditionally system which opinion quote main Mr. should Jus- con- To been built. torically that law has support tice Holmes the main destroy opinion, is to the main as has clude having that “There nothing remarked it. we know of the law as philosophy revolting than no to have better rea- more au- rule than that it was so laid opinion, recognizing the son down main Henry implication IV.” The against it, that “We in the time of also stated thorities great be that the that such a seems to would not impressed with the fiction Justice precedent and the an island and follow law. in effect established fic- adopt no I not believe he would Firstly, there is the state.” do within year, “Every Territory county Constitution, IV, one 2: art. four § Utah precinct age days States, months, sixty of the United citizen preceding any election, years twenty-one upwards, who next shall be en- days, except ninety to vote such election titled at a citizen for have been shall provided.” herein otherwise the State have resided ánd shall recognizes petitioner significance vote. The policy. To attach petitioner case would his whole claim with this this. staked in connection quotation thing, saying the Sermon whether that other “exclusive tantamount jurisdiction” its here, he honored in and the court the Mount should existed during enunciated has staked whole because it was decision on the same breach premise. remembered therefore, must be inescapable, Biblical era. It It too, and petitioner awas soldier Holmes both and this court conceded Justice military res- than must a resident of more concede that voter status of the having been petitioner ervation, fads, I believe that on the is based and that also such, soldier-lawyer, known this this must to determine his status court along with eloquent dissents, go presented showing with facts the existence ma- than with here rather or lack of exclusive dissent government. jority. connection, opinion says this main In rea- following for the II. I dissent also plaintiff following “The sets forth the un- confined opinion has not (cid:127)sons: disputed facts indicate that the fed- only question involved itself to the one has eral and maintains some- registration wrong for the Was here: considerably thing juris- less than exclusive petitioner register agent refuse to diction on reservation.” Then *11 the lived on ground the that he sole opinion says main such the facts are that majority the reservation? Had 1) a the state has to serve civil and
n opinionanswered this question, which process base, 2) the criminal that schools affirmative, I raised, in the only the by children attended on the base perfectly But, may agreed. as is have by administered the Tooele are School Dis- n clear, I statute, which under the trict, 3) pay residents of that area the question basic pertinent think not taxes, 4) income that other taxes on voter of involved, question is that by gas paid them, are S) and tobacco the under military reservation on a status private registered vehicles are that n exclusive gov- by state. licensed the person must be held to ernment, “A place opinion the by grossly In the first solely errs a residence gained or lost have * * * says when it facts the mentioned were set presence or absence reason of *** plaintiff undisputed. by and were forth reservation.” upon any petition is not one word the day, There night setting that from follows It follows of facts which forth even one the the there must some- main simple language be that deny recites, in this opinion connection give residence to thing than report accurately any either before it or before district main does court.. any If argument taking proceedings. necessary of evidence is The mentioned, matter, none for a determination of set the- brief forth facts subject- may been which were under oath or had refer the matter penalties a district where court or to a under the- ed cross-examination master provisions Yet, main prevail. hearing, perjury might rules, these necessary.” opinion accepts statements such these unsworn facts as be argument, course during adduced Had the suggestion been- of this writer gospel petitioner, as the by counsel for adopted, following undisputed facts- hearsay in acceptance pure truth. This developed: would have been procedure in an abuse of and of itself is a) although That pay- income taxes are question whether connection with by military- able to the State residents of the issued, and should be writ of mandamus reservation, that fact does not its. departure startling represents a new and any roots in statutory or inherent procedure. As to legal the annals of authority levy taxes, and collect the but- undis- were these facts assertion simply by grace of a benevolent Con- of inaccurate instance puted, this is another gress that levy allowed such and collec- opposition, for the reporting, since counsel tion virtue of U.S.Code,. Title contentions, argument, refuted the also in time,, concession withdrawable at opinion disputed the of this the writer and without which the state could not have- following: leads me to the facts, which levied collected these giving- In taxes. ground also on the I dissent III. impression petitioner here,, as did the pleaded been assuming facts .the opinion, and as has the main that the State- contrary quite the facts petition, authority had unrestricted to levy and col- caution the main accepted without those than, taxes, lect these can be nothing more “undisputed.” claimed to opinion and a half-truth. urged that this this dissent writer mentioned', b) master to fact that other to a determine taxes assigned case opinion, suggestion gasoline did not This facts. true majority, approval of the tobacco taxes were levied and collected meet state, upshot was the statutes4 invite such also own another- although our complaint Congress “If the saying arising beneficence out of Title *12 procedure, 104, U.S.Code, Court, filed in Sec. absent which the- relief seeking the writ state could not collect them. may order returnable court (g) Rules Civil Procedure. 65B Utah de- following commodities also have been facts would c) fact that sales tax on veloped by imposed : may be on the reservation sold gift from is another State a) liquor mil- transported That U.S. Sec. Title government, under itary penalty for reservation without state will; demon- Code, at and to terminable transportation non-payment or has into which error strate the tax; liquor state impression the giving fallen b) reservation, liquor That is sold on the ad- levy taxes as these has anyone subject fact crim- would sovereignty, 107 of junct of its penalties City inal Tooele in Salt Lake or provides specifically Title same federal City; pur- assessed tax sales cannot commis- government stores
chases c) from That it is sold on the without base saries. mark-up; any statutory cost, (d) it is sold at profit, That without res- children of the fact that
d) The and therefore there are no there funds jurisdiction of the under are ervation participate which can or would Board, simply a conven- School Tooele program school lunch fund as is the case government, by ar- the federal ience statutorily5 part profit of the made rangement. liquor County, sale of in Tooele by res- vehicles owned fact that e) The elsewhere the state. This results in the li- registered are area idents of paradox of the taxable residents of the obviously is because by the state censed support furnishing funds to the school reservation leave of the residents program which taken advantage lunch licensing subject occasion, and are children those on the base who do highways used on that are of vehicles not, purchases by their contribute to the the state. (In program. fairness, lunch school I say disparity that this peace might and local officers State, county f) into consideration in taken gate agree- at the entrance been at the confronted the federal guard, ment between an armed the reservation authorities in the only employment au- school insofar entrance permitted facilities.) permit of school charge it. thorities suggestion writer had been If the suggestion of writer If that a reasonably appointed sure that taken, I am fact-finder adopted, been
5. Title 53-8-1 Utah Code Annotated. *13 could have dent the area not demand that the- facts also would undisputed following him; gate open armed at the guard it for developed: been question there no but what the federal U.S.Code, provides 1382, a) 18, Sec. Title operate could a school on the violating jailed, or for may fined that one statutory free from state base curriculum reservation, on the regulation lawful statutory requirements. or Utah attendance persons; as to making no distinction might inquire as agency One to what state penalizes 1383, U.S.Code b) Title Sec. guard gate could force the armed at the to any restriction violating knowingly one it; open own whether our court could order base; on the of the chil- commander base to force living on the base dren attend a to state U.S.Code, permits c) Title school, which, failing he would be held in of- punishment certain for of and control contempt jailed failure; off the reservation fenses conducted agency what enforce such an as de- distance” “within such reasonable happen order. wonders what would if' One officials. termined federal at an the commander base declared question but the federal what is no There day the- prevented alert on election jurisdiction over exclusive have authorities vote, still, residents to or better what must It be borne mind reservation. this would or do if state authorities could jurisdiction not tested exclusive permit of' commander did not the residents ju- having exclusive what concessions period, lay-off the area a two-hour others, by what but give risdiction vote, pay, in which outside order with- concessions be power if such his the election area would be an offense under were made. It would no never or drawn One wonders what resident laws. rejoin answer anyone or else would made, split- have been concessions a fact do, or could if one those residents were authority. Otherwise federal ting the Commissioner, County elected Tooele authorities, they desired, could exercise permitted by commander off by the of making control device political military reservation attend commis-- an installation other- concessions a few perform meetings or leavé sion base exclusive under the wise county duties as commissioner. One- his government, residents there happen what would if a resident wonders otherwise could vote where not. could appointed registration area were of the jurisdiction, agent and non-residents demanded exclusiveness entrance- there As question but registry what a examine the- official voter’s be no non-resi- could petitioner (an ironically enough, made available act which qualified voters "the list juris- points now to establish 'by order statute. testing claims.) In such diction for following rea- I dissent also for IV. al- event all of facts could been n son: entertaining of the court’s testimony leged. required All would have my opinion, petition, particular only willing to face not witnesses high function procedural abuse pen- searching cross-examination but the mandamus, extraordinary writ of 'the —and *14 jury they if falsified. A perjury alties of plea premium a worse, places it a what is by impanelled, been or if heard could have expediency after and created artificial alone, findings and con- the court of fact petitioner in procrastination year -a 31/2 and clusions of law could have been framed pursuing claims. his judgment a rendered which would have with an elev- confronted Court was This subject orderly been to an review this n enth-hour job, petitioner in which the rush period Court, with a reasonable within require five-day ultimatum to a gave it important problem, which to research this agent register petitioner, registration and with an official record before us stop-watch powered a latter held while the n by last minute hearsay generality, based on and sym- marshalling of the a public press, opinion an uninformed and pathy of the main must admit were the bases five-day this met the Court to determine It for its decision is little wonder here. my opinion carefully was In it -deadline. petitioner chose that his course care- hardly timed, effectively but planned, and fully and with excellent timing; his claims part any desire on the of the (cid:127)out sincere determined, by highest were court orderly to an submit his claims petitioner to state, hearsay statements of his own But searching examination. it worked! complete making, immunity from the decent, petitioner taken the Had the penalties perjury. proper case, in this he
judicial, course knows, this Court well every As and as any at tested his ill-timed claims could have knows, year every law student first and as legislation was enacted time after knows, reader Hornbook the writ of man- This which he bases claims. those sparingly should be used damus and with prior long years three and one-half caution, peti- the utmost where —never self-same ill-timed claims. assertion those ample has had time tioner to test his claims He it within the frame- could done Act,6 Declaratory Judgment in a work of the different forum under other order- 78-33-1, 6. Title U.C.A.1953. repeat statute, this
ly procedures.7 Again petitioner proven I that under the has disqualification. years go by test- his petitioner let without own 3i^ facilities of ing claims with other passing, In this writer takes issue with He procedures. orderly number of other proposition volunteered in high come allowed to into is then that installations “have proce- stop-watch maneuver it into many years any existed for so that from abortion, atmosphere high dural thing known, permanent that are a vote, right to sounding phrases anent the part of our social and economic life and my opin- sympathy. In designed arouse political therefore should of our life only is majority this Court ion the also.” anything known, From decision, permitted has wrong in it opposite has Utah, been the case in procedural error the commission of majority could have known this of one prostitution function determining factually that out about nine rarely available sacred writs most Utah, of such subject installations litigants. reservation is but one of left, about three being knowledge reason common following Wings I dissent for V. petitioner had Airforce Base in western assuming Salt that the Lake had also: life, two-year orderly ending less Fort pursued Doug in an his claims ad- at least one-half fashion, down, las is closed he has nonetheless a sub inordinate portion in this of that qualification to stantial reservation having vote a lack mitted *15 University present sold to the must be been of of facts that Utah One in state. state, Kearns, Camp largest 1947, an elector in this of all qualify one as to personnel here, is, accord- thousands was period of closed down besides U.C.A.19S3, replaced subdivision, a res- 20-2-14(1) and ing Title Wendover *** place being 1958, “That Base ordered closed in Air defined as idence fixed, Fighter Squadron base habitation is and 191st in his in which absent, he has (cid:127)which, he the Clearfield Naval Base having whenever been re materially. returning.” question aTo duced The gratuitous conclu intention of opinion majority one of the counsel sions of relating his asked Justices surely petitioner would remain here these bases would not have been whether employment suggestion on the res- lost his made had the if he this writer Utah response adopted ervation, finding agency was “No.” Under been that a fact laws, appointed principles to assist simple of conflicts us our delibera Court, 708; Trust Co. v. District 62 Utah 220 P. 34 Am.Jur. 7. Banker’s 36, Mandamus. like field important case. on the would risks life battle in this
tions and decision n Nor to hear who reside more. The soldiers gratuitous statement would the except hear very this would like to made that opinion main have been reservation) respected I more. And am sure that (residence that fact Supreme The judges in state Courts vote.” the various qualifications to he all other requiring and the of the United States satisfying 20-2-14(1) matter supra, must who decided cases footnote qualified cited elector that to be a more, happy state” would like hear will be returning to the the “intention of —and proved, opinions alleged or to learn that in Utah their studied absent, carefully was not pronouncements wrong must petition and are all from the was omitted principle who decisis no petitioner’s counsel bow stare negated by own leave legal admitted longer precept former is a here. ceased, (parentheses employment
if his permanent writ of The mandamus never ours) been in this case should have issued generally with agree I am inclined Court, petition on which was opin- expressions of patriotic denied, only should have been based not actively vote and anent “The ion have been returned with an but should ac- among the processes participate fair, companying lecture on decent and privileges for precious most proper procedure indulged seek- to be when form of democratic our respected high the benefit of this ing District residents of the established.” The writ. hear more. like to Columbia would (Italics ours.) military reserva- dozens residents have said could where courts tions CALLISTER, J., agrees with the dissent- like to elections would
not vote HENRIOD, 18-year who ing old soldier hear more. J.